Public Opinion on Lebanon

After the shock of the new Mideast War we are beginning to see public opinion forming in the pronouncements of the opinion makers. In Europe, of course, the watchword is “disproportionate” as in Israel’s response to border violations and rocket attacks on its citizens.

But in the US there is a different dynamic developing. There is the “arc of Shia radicalism” argument, suggested by Walid Phares, in which the Iranians are building an arc of Shia radicalism from Tehran to Beirut with Hezbollah holding down the right flank.

Then there is Michael Barone observing that the rules have changed in this Mideast War because there is now, after the withdrawal from South Lebanon and Gaza, no excuse for the “land for peace” argument. Israel’s two enemies want to destroy it. Period.

A lot of people are panicking about the strength of Iran and Hezbollah. But Peter Brookes wonders if it is Syria that is panicking. “Syria,” he writes, ”will not be invited to attend this Wednesday's Rome conference on Lebanon.”

Damascus is, in actuality, desperate. It is becomes increasingly marginalized in this Middle East crisis by both the United States and other Arab nations, and may have little to no say in resolving the current Lebanese conflict. This would be a serious blow to Damascus' interests-and more painfully, its ego.

Imagine that. Condi going to the Middle East with cards to play against Syria and Iran.

Suppose that Israel succeeded in defanging Hezbollah, and suppose Syria actually offered substantial concessions to get into the game.

Well, you never know. Justs because CNN and Al-Jazeera are showing mayhem and disaster 24/7 doesn’t mean that, behind the scenes, there really is mayhem and disaster. It just means that they are filling the TV screen with ruined buildings and frightened, wounded children. Because that is what they do.